I guess the point is that in cycling - relative to other sports - money gives you an easy edge. You can afford much better equipment, nutrition, coaching etc... . Compare that to (say) football in the UK: you just need a £5 ball and a few friends, and if you show promise you can track into your local team's programme and get top quality coaching at minimal cost.
It depends on the culture as well. From what I read about China, they're constantly scouting primary schools for Olympic talent, so you can come from any background and reach the top in a sport that would be limited to wealthier people in other countries.
At the top level of any sport, the expense comes from the coaching, exercise science, travel and other support over the course of years. That's true whether the game is cycling, or football. A $20,000 bike is peanuts in comparison to this cost. Unless you are at the top 0.001 percent of cyclists, better/more training has a much bigger impact than gear. $1,000 gets you a competitive road bike that you can win your local races with. Even cheaper if you buy used.
> From what I read about China, they're constantly scouting primary schools for Olympic talent, so you can come from any background and reach the top in a sport that would be limited to wealthier people in other countries.
This is what wealthy countries do as well. Most wealthy nations have programs to identify and develop top-level athletes. An obvious example being the very lucrative scholarships offered at American universities.
At levels lower than the very top, it's easier and cheaper to lose 10 pounds of your own body than 10 pounds of bike. You can go far - even into racing at low levels - on rather cheap equipment.
If you do well on a cheap bike in a local race someone will notice and start asking if you belong on a major team with money. The teams with money want to win, they cannot afford to keep out a poor person who otherwise is good.
The performance difference between cheaper bikes and top end bikes won’t make the difference in being a successful cyclist.
Anyone can pick up a bike and start training and racing in competitions and be talent scouted in the same way that you would in football, it’s what happens here in Australia.
Yes a football is cheaper than a bike, but it’s not 0.0001% type stuff like Formula 1. Where you legitimately need to pay millions just to get a look in.
Theres plenty of people on $8,000 bikes I pass on my 8 year old bike worth $2,000.
Is $2000 really "cheap" though? I personally would need to use a cycle to work scheme, and I consider myself pretty well off. I know people on lower incomes who would find that very off-putting as a barrier to entry. I think you'd need to go to the $150 or less range to be appealing to people in that situation.
$2000 is not bad looking at what it costs to play hockey. A lot of sports are less expensive though.
Otoh, around me, $100 gets you a circa 1980 road bike off craigslist. That'll do fine. I'm seeing a much more recent road bike for $500, if you don't like old stuff because it's old. Plenty of more expensive stuff too. I like the early 1980s bikes because road bikes were in fashion and there were a lot of makes competing and quality (of surviving bikes) is pretty good. Later, mountain bikes started trending, there was consolidation and I don't feel that those bikes are as good on the road as a general rule.
In my team there is an ex professional cyclist from 80s. Sometimes he come in the Sunday group rides with one of his 80s bikes and he is able to overpass everybody.
At the other side, I tried climbing the same hill at same power with my 2017 bike and with my 2023 bike. There was a 4% of difference in the time, probably because better wheels and improved position.
I'm not sure how that's any different than football (soccer) or football (American) or anything else.
You need talent as a kid. You need money to fund travel and equipment (either from mom & dad, or the local academy/development squad, or donors). You need to find a coach who can get the most out of your genetics AND find a path for you to go pro. And on and on.
I've never seen so many young people on bikes in the UK as I do now. Sure, the bikes are likely stolen and the kids up to no good, but at least one of them has TdF potential
Money can help in any sport, but talent and physical attributes trumps all. At least with cycling, people can cycle almost anywhere. Sports like golf are hard to break into if someone doesn't have money because rounds and practice almost always have ongoing costs.
Peter Sagan started career winning on Tesco bike that he took from his sister.
But I think most accessible sport is running. You just need some shoes. Open the door and you are good to go (run). For games like football you also need the ball, playground and other people.
Not if everybody plays, in every school recess, every park, rec center, etc.
That's how football is in most countries. "Pay to play" is a very US thing.
Anyone can learn a bunch of gymnastic moves, too. But last I heard, "Olympic Gymnast" implies a >1k hour/year training regimen, starting at an extremely young age.
Primoz Roglic was a ski jumper before he was one of the best cyclists. There are several others like him.
Most of the cyclists are white, yes, for me this is an issue (and I am white), but what I like is that there are now many from Colombia (because of the mountains there? And probably also some cycling culture), a few days ago a cyclist from Eritrea won a TdF stage.. it's slowly getting more diverse.
I guess the point is that in cycling - relative to other sports - money gives you an easy edge. You can afford much better equipment, nutrition, coaching etc... . Compare that to (say) football in the UK: you just need a £5 ball and a few friends, and if you show promise you can track into your local team's programme and get top quality coaching at minimal cost.
It depends on the culture as well. From what I read about China, they're constantly scouting primary schools for Olympic talent, so you can come from any background and reach the top in a sport that would be limited to wealthier people in other countries.
At the top level of any sport, the expense comes from the coaching, exercise science, travel and other support over the course of years. That's true whether the game is cycling, or football. A $20,000 bike is peanuts in comparison to this cost. Unless you are at the top 0.001 percent of cyclists, better/more training has a much bigger impact than gear. $1,000 gets you a competitive road bike that you can win your local races with. Even cheaper if you buy used.
> From what I read about China, they're constantly scouting primary schools for Olympic talent, so you can come from any background and reach the top in a sport that would be limited to wealthier people in other countries.
This is what wealthy countries do as well. Most wealthy nations have programs to identify and develop top-level athletes. An obvious example being the very lucrative scholarships offered at American universities.
At least food-wise, the article claims that cycling was (until recently) far less spare-no-expense optimized:
> Not so long ago, the professional cycling world's approach to fuelling was remarkably basic.
> Options for riders barely extended beyond a monotonous menu of pasta, rice or whatever fare that night's hotel kitchen decided to serve up.
> These days, it is an entirely different prospect, with vast sums spent on...
At levels lower than the very top, it's easier and cheaper to lose 10 pounds of your own body than 10 pounds of bike. You can go far - even into racing at low levels - on rather cheap equipment.
If you do well on a cheap bike in a local race someone will notice and start asking if you belong on a major team with money. The teams with money want to win, they cannot afford to keep out a poor person who otherwise is good.
The performance difference between cheaper bikes and top end bikes won’t make the difference in being a successful cyclist.
Anyone can pick up a bike and start training and racing in competitions and be talent scouted in the same way that you would in football, it’s what happens here in Australia.
Yes a football is cheaper than a bike, but it’s not 0.0001% type stuff like Formula 1. Where you legitimately need to pay millions just to get a look in.
Theres plenty of people on $8,000 bikes I pass on my 8 year old bike worth $2,000.
Is $2000 really "cheap" though? I personally would need to use a cycle to work scheme, and I consider myself pretty well off. I know people on lower incomes who would find that very off-putting as a barrier to entry. I think you'd need to go to the $150 or less range to be appealing to people in that situation.
$2000 is not bad looking at what it costs to play hockey. A lot of sports are less expensive though.
Otoh, around me, $100 gets you a circa 1980 road bike off craigslist. That'll do fine. I'm seeing a much more recent road bike for $500, if you don't like old stuff because it's old. Plenty of more expensive stuff too. I like the early 1980s bikes because road bikes were in fashion and there were a lot of makes competing and quality (of surviving bikes) is pretty good. Later, mountain bikes started trending, there was consolidation and I don't feel that those bikes are as good on the road as a general rule.
In my team there is an ex professional cyclist from 80s. Sometimes he come in the Sunday group rides with one of his 80s bikes and he is able to overpass everybody.
At the other side, I tried climbing the same hill at same power with my 2017 bike and with my 2023 bike. There was a 4% of difference in the time, probably because better wheels and improved position.
I'm not sure how that's any different than football (soccer) or football (American) or anything else.
You need talent as a kid. You need money to fund travel and equipment (either from mom & dad, or the local academy/development squad, or donors). You need to find a coach who can get the most out of your genetics AND find a path for you to go pro. And on and on.
What makes the largest difference is how physically fit and how well you can ride (technique) rather than equipment.
I've never seen so many young people on bikes in the UK as I do now. Sure, the bikes are likely stolen and the kids up to no good, but at least one of them has TdF potential
The kids may be doping, too.
Money can help in any sport, but talent and physical attributes trumps all. At least with cycling, people can cycle almost anywhere. Sports like golf are hard to break into if someone doesn't have money because rounds and practice almost always have ongoing costs.
Peter Sagan started career winning on Tesco bike that he took from his sister.
But I think most accessible sport is running. You just need some shoes. Open the door and you are good to go (run). For games like football you also need the ball, playground and other people.
There's even a subset of runners that would argue you don't even need shoes!
Not if everybody plays, in every school recess, every park, rec center, etc. That's how football is in most countries. "Pay to play" is a very US thing.
From a quick skim here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teams_and_cyclists_in_... - all but one team are from well-to-do Western countries, or rich Gulf States. Cyclists seem similarly all-but-a-few white.
Anyone can learn a bunch of gymnastic moves, too. But last I heard, "Olympic Gymnast" implies a >1k hour/year training regimen, starting at an extremely young age.
Primoz Roglic was a ski jumper before he was one of the best cyclists. There are several others like him.
Most of the cyclists are white, yes, for me this is an issue (and I am white), but what I like is that there are now many from Colombia (because of the mountains there? And probably also some cycling culture), a few days ago a cyclist from Eritrea won a TdF stage.. it's slowly getting more diverse.